Impatience and the Media

The events of last week were horrifying on multiple levels. I think we were all worried about Boston, glued to our television and computer screens waiting for news. People who followed closely were able to listen to the police scanner and experience the events as they unfolded, albeit from a safe location miles away from the scene. In some ways, this is a great time for information. Information and media are now easier to consume than ever.

Unfortunately, the news got a lot of things wrong. These were, on the whole, mistakes that could have been avoided if news outlets had waited for hard facts instead of reporting conjecture, assumption and outright guessing.

This is not a new problem. It was even touched on in an episode of "The Newsroom" last year. The 24/7 news cycle has completely changed how and when we expect to receive news. The thing is, I don't think this is necessarily a good change.

Shouldn't the point of the news be to disseminate the truth? To report the facts? Are we so desperate for quick answers that we're willing to accept falsehoods along the road to eventual enlightenment?

I am reminded of an entry I wrote in my journal on September 11, 2001, in which I recorded that the current suspects were Osama bin Laden (correct) and the Palestinians (obviously and completely 100% wrong). Was this just the mistake of a 15-year-old? Perhaps I messed up my geography? (If so, I have good company, with all those people who thought Chechens were from the Czech Republic).

Or was this something I heard from someone who heard it from a source sometime over the course of that day? I have no idea. But it makes me wonder why we're always so quick to jump to conclusions.